[Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
Edward Wall
ewall@umich.edu
Sat Apr 22 18:09:31 PDT 2017
MIke
I’m all for getting back to wording.
Ed
> On Apr 22, 2017, at 7:24 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> And there were more, Ed.
> The facility where I have a pdf of that book is inaccessible at the moment
> and discussing it without reading it is not going to help xmca-ers
> understand the issues being discussed.
>
> I think this is not a central part of the argument that david is making,
> and the last thing that should happen is that there should be distractions
> or footnotes added to the current discussion.
>
> I will bug out for now. If, at some later time, the Cole and Scribner book,
> which was published just as we started to seriously engage Vygotsky, seems
> appropriate for discussion, the book can be made available as a pdf, I can
> blush through all the blunders, and then we can discuss the last chapter
> which addresses the overall conclusion of the book.
>
> Lets stick with wording and the issues surrounding the importance of this
> concept. Or at least, I'll stick with that.
>
> mike
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Edward Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>> Mike and David
>>
>> For what’s it worth, it appears to be page 25 in Cole and Scribner.
>> There was, by the way, a Cole and Gay article “Culture and Memory”
>> published in 1972.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 2017, at 5:27 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi David -
>>>
>>> Thanks for correction of primitive. Preliterate will do. I figured your
>>> observations applied to adults. They certainly applied to adults,
>>> non-literate or literate in Vai in the later work I did with Sylvia
>>> Scribner.
>>>
>>> OK. I will not read Roy Harris instead of David Kellogg and those members
>>> of xmca who have it figured out! Sheesh.
>>>
>>> I do not know Cole and Gay, 1972. In Cole, Gay, Glick, and Sharp (1971)
>>> we wrote:
>>>
>>> Cultural differences reside more in the differences in situations to
>> which
>>> cultural groups apply their skills than to differences in the skills
>>> possessed by the groups in question.
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not have Cole&Scribner to hand. What page was that quotation from? A
>>> shortcoming of our work back in those days and in more recent work as
>> well
>>> was our failure to fully consider and understand the role
>>> of values and normativity in human culture, so it would help to have the
>>> context to see why we did not use the cole et al ideas which we were
>> still
>>> working past in the 1980's.
>>>
>>> Looking for that quotation from Cole et al. 1971 i came across the one
>>> page, attached, commentary on those early works that is very short, but
>>> gives the essence of Gay and Cole, the starting point in my own
>> involvement
>>> in those issues.
>>>
>>> Word meaning develops in ontogeny. :-)
>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:18 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike: I think what I said was "preliterate" children and not
>> "primitive"
>>>> children. But what I said is true of preliterate adults as well: they
>> are
>>>> often unable to say how many words there are in a sentence, just as
>>>> literate speakers of English find it hard to say how many syllables
>> there
>>>> are "upholstery" or how many morphemes there are in "nuclear".
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we need Roy Harris to "prove" that "word" is ineffable.
>> Yes,
>>>> a definition is made of words. So when you define a word, you simply
>>>> replace one word with many. Anybody who has tried to learn a language
>> with
>>>> a monolingual dictionary knows this. And because "word" is itself a
>>>> word, the same thing happens when you define "word".
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't mean linguistics is useless; it only means that linguistics
>>>> doesn't have some privileged ontological, quasi-metaphysical status: it
>> is
>>>> just language turned back on itself, as Firth used to say. But so what?
>>>> Psychology is consciousness turned back on itself. Chemical and physical
>>>> experiments are matter turned back on itself.
>>>>
>>>> And we keep finding that some ways of turning language back on itself
>> are
>>>> more useful than others. The word "word" all by itself is not very
>> useful
>>>> because it is a little like Bakhtin's "utterance". It's the space
>> between
>>>> two spaces on a typewriter, just as the word "utterance" is the space
>>>> between two changes of speaker. It's phenomenological, in the sense of
>>>> pre-analytical.
>>>>
>>>> But "wording" is not a word all by itself; it's part of a system of
>>>> concepts. A "morpheme", a "word", a "group", a "clause" or a "clause
>>>> complex" is not "in between" the utterance on the one hand and the
>>>> statement on the other. All of them are distinct, but linked, levels of
>>>> structure. A word ("worker") is made up of one or more morphemes
>> ("work",
>>>> "~er"), a group is made up of one or more words ("workers and
>> peasants"), a
>>>> clause is made up of one more word groups ("the means of production
>> belongs
>>>> to the workers and peasants") and a clause complex of one or more
>> clauses
>>>> ("Socialism is possible in the USSR because the means of production
>> belongs
>>>> to the workers and peasants").
>>>>
>>>> Vygotsky says that word meanings develop. That's true. But the specific
>> way
>>>> in which we watch this development in data is neither through counting
>>>> morphemes (Brown) or trying to observe "meanings" (Freud) but rather
>>>> through wordings. We need a view of grammar that will allow us to do
>> that.
>>>>
>>>> Ruqaiya Hasan criticizes Cole and Gay (1972), and later Cole and
>> Scribner
>>>> (1974), for saying "The reasoning and thinking processes of different
>>>> people in different cultures do not differ--just their value, beliefs,
>> and
>>>> ways of classifying differ." Ruqaiya asks--how could one differ and not
>> the
>>>> other? And how would you know that was the case?
>>>>
>>>> David Kellogg
>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>
>>>> gropu
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 2:05 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the tip on the Harris book, David. I know his work mostly
>>>>> through his book on the origin of writing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which reminds me of a question for David K. Why is it that you make
>>>>> reference to primitive children, David? Why not primitive adults as
>> well?
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:10 AM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. <
>>>>> d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Reflexivity and the thorny question of metalanguage seems to be at
>>>> issue
>>>>>> here: might I suggest that the late Roy Harris's book 'The Language
>>>>>> Connection' might set the scene. Harris's description of how
>>>> Linguistics
>>>>>> constantly fails to define the word 'word' is wonderful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
>>>>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
>>>>>> Sent: 21 April 2017 01:47
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Choosing your wording carefully, David, you come up with "wording" to
>>>>>> describe what I think of as the holophrases in question. To help me
>>>>> clarify
>>>>>> your point for myself, and to use your way of communicating about it,
>>>>> how
>>>>>> does the wording "wording" relate to the wordings "statement" or
>>>>>> "utterance" offered by Michael in the first case and by others in the
>>>>> group
>>>>>> on behalf of Bakhtin?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is there a holphorastic rendering/wording that might help us out here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS- As an afterthought, the examples feel like an utterance to me. But
>>>>>> that might make a liar out of me too :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:33 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In English, the number of syllables or morphemes in a word is often
>>>>>>> unclear, while the number of words in a sentence is always fairly
>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>> This isn't true for preliterate children, who have a hard time
>>>>>>> understanding that "a" and "of" are actually words. It's true enough
>>>>>>> for people who can read and write, but its really an accident of
>>>>>>> orthography (notice that "it's" appears to be one syllable but two
>>>>>>> morphemes, and it's not really clear, even to the normally quite
>>>>>>> overwheening "wordcount" function in Word, how many words are
>>>> actually
>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Other languages are not like English. So for example in Chinese (a
>>>>>>> non-alphabetic language), the number of syllables and morphemes is
>>>>>>> always clear, but the number of words in a sentence is quite unclear
>>>>>>> (when you read a page of Chinese, there are no spaces between
>>>>>>> morpho-syllables that mark out "words". Chinese poetry, and classical
>>>>>>> Chinese, plays with this a lot: the unit is the morpheme rather than
>>>>>>> the word, and the overall effect (at least on me) is a stream of
>>>>>>> syllables and morphemes and meanings but not words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think the place to look for Vygotsky's unit of analysis is not
>>>> in
>>>>>>> the actual word "word" or "word meaning" (slovo or znachenie slova).
>>>>>>> Holbrook Mahn has proposed translating "znachenie slova" as "verbal
>>>>>>> meaning", and although this isn't exactly an accurate way of
>>>>>>> presenting how Russian grammar really works, it IS a good way of
>>>>>>> getting around the trap set for those who are only going by the
>>>> English
>>>>>> word meaning of "word meaning".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the place to look is in Vygotsky's examples. In the first
>>>> part
>>>>>>> of Thinking and Speech, for example, Vygotsky agrees with Stern that
>>>>>>> the child's first "word" has to be construed as not a word but a
>>>> whole
>>>>>> wording.
>>>>>>> He goes even further: he says it's a whole "wording-in-context", that
>>>>>>> is, a meaning. (And remember, Vygotsky NEVER agrees with Stern about
>>>>>>> ANYTHING unless he absolutely has to!) And in the LAST part of
>>>>>>> Thinking and Speech, Vygotsky gives many examples: 'the clock fell",
>>>>>>> "the tram B is arriving", "Would you like some tea"? What all of
>>>> these
>>>>>>> examples have in common is that they are not single words but they
>>>> are
>>>>>> single wordings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember that Russian has no articles; this is something that Andy
>>>>>>> himself points out with respect to whether "perezhivanie" should be
>>>> "a
>>>>>>> perizhivanie" or just "perizhivanie". I think Andy's observation is
>>>>>>> essentially correct (although of course we undo part of his insight
>>>>>>> when we insist that all languages must "really" have an article of
>>>>>>> some kind). But it needs to be generalized: Vygotsky could NOT have
>>>>>>> ever written that the unit of analysis is "a" word meaning, simply
>>>>>>> because "a", as any preliterate child will tell you, is not a word
>>>>>>> (and certainly not a Russian word).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:19 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. <
>>>>>>> d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Re the development of punctuation and the origin of 'words' see
>>>>>>>> http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?3.61
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
>>>>>>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
>>>>>>>> Sent: 20 April 2017 01:45
>>>>>>>> To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "the word" in Russian, Andy, has shades of meaning tending toward
>>>>>>>> the biblical from current common understandings of the term as a
>>>>>>>> sort
>>>>>>> "lexical
>>>>>>>> object." The Vai didnotmakethesamedistinction when writing and
>>>>>>>> neithr
>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>> the Greeks.
>>>>>>>> I believe there are those who would include the utterance in its
>>>>>>>> meaning as used by Vygotsky. Slippery these translation problems!
>>>>>>>> But discussion
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> them often reveals clarification of the various concepts involved
>>>> as
>>>>>>>> they appear in different peoples' vocabularies. Mediation has some
>>>>>>>> of those properties.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The polysemy of just one language is enough for one poor translator
>>>>>>>> to deal with! The polsyemic playing field when you cross
>>>>>>>> language/cultural systems is what gives academics something to do.
>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and as a further note of caution, the unit in "Thinking and
>>>>>>>>> Speech" is a word, not an utterance, and yet it is utterance
>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> seems to be analogous to "commodity."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>>>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
>>>> decision-mak
>>>>>>>>> ing On 20/04/2017 7:01 AM, Julian Williams wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Michael/all
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I go back a few posts (as ever being a bit slower than this
>>>>>>>>>> list-serve demands - let me do this before the discussion moves
>>>>>>>>>> to 'binocular
>>>>>>>>>> vision') and challenge the metaphor of commodity/utterance: I
>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> see it has merit but also I want to look at the limitations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You say: 'the sign is to the verbal exchange what the commodity
>>>>>>>>>> is to the Commodity-exchange' … But I think I was asking for a
>>>>>>>>>> characterisation of the larger totality involved - e.g. The
>>>>>>>>>> 'economy/mode of production and its contradictions/collapse' and
>>>>>>>>>> 'what
>>>>>>>> - dialogue?'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I think Andy B agrees with you when he says 'both take an
>>>>>>>>>> artefact-mediated relation between individuals as the unit'… But
>>>>>>>>>> suggests he recognises my problem when he refers to 'its
>>>> language'
>>>>>>>>>> (or I might say 'consciousness', 'discourse' or maybe
>>>>>> 'intercourse').
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But - as I argued in critique of the metaphor 'labour =
>>>>>>>>>> learning', this mapping only goes so far, and has certain
>>>>>>>>>> dangers. The relation between commodity/economy (and the mode of
>>>>>>>>>> production) and utterance/discourse (and the ideological
>>>>>>>>>> super/infra-structure) is much more interesting in the concrete
>>>>>>>>>> relations of history. I refer to Marx (the German ideology) and
>>>>>> Volosinov.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In reality the relation between commodity production and
>>>>>>>>>> 'sign-related/mediated' discourse (Marx calls 'intercourse') is
>>>>>>>>>> dialectical. Each 'mediates' the other in historical
>>>> development,
>>>>>>>>>> and even in collective production-and-dialogue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus, I suggest, the 'exchange/use value' of an
>>>>>>>>>> utterance/dialogic exchange maybe ought to be examined in the
>>>>>>>>>> ideological context of its relationship with the 'whole' of
>>>>>>>>>> social re/production where class power becomes visible. I don't
>>>>>>>>>> know how to do this, but the argument is there in
>>>>>>>>>> Bourdieu: the power relations between people are part of the
>>>>>>>>>> capital-mediated structure of relations in a field (including
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> field of opinion/discourse), and this explains the forms of
>>>>>>>>>> discourse that express these power relationships and help to
>>>> hold
>>>>>>>>>> powerful positions in place in the field. In this view it is not
>>>>>>>>>> possible to identify the 'value' of an utterance or a sign
>>>>>>>>>> outside of this wider analysis… and an analysis of the
>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>> discursive/cultural field
>>>>>>>> within its wider sociality.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry this is a bit prolix and so likely to provoke tangential
>>>>>>>> responses:
>>>>>>>>>> I did not have time tonight to write a shorter more focussed
>>>> post.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Julian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ps The separate discussion on mediation: this might be another
>>>>>>>>>> thread. I only want to note here that the mediation of the
>>>>>>>>>> 'intercourse' through its 'other' in the material form of
>>>>>>>>>> 'production' (I call the economy above) and vice versa does not
>>>>>>>>>> involve a mediator 'between' the two, but is purely hegelian in
>>>>>>>>>> seeing the mediation of 'x' through 'not x' in a totality.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2017 16:34, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf
>>>>>>>>>> of Wolff-Michael Roth" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on
>>>> behalf
>>>>>>>>>> of wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Larry, do not be confused. Take it with Bateson (Mind and
>>>>>>>>>> Nature), and see
>>>>>>>>>>> Andy and Michael as two eyes. You then get this:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is correct (and a great improvement) to begin to think of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> two parties to the interaction as two eyes , each giving a
>>>>>>>>>>> monocular view of what goes on and , together , giving a
>>>>>>>>>>> binocular view in depth. This double view is the relationship .
>>>>>>>>>>> (p.133)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is gained by comparing the data collected by one eye with
>>>>>>>>>>> the data collected by the other? Typically , both eyes are
>>>> aimed
>>>>>>>>>>> at the same region of the surrounding universe, and this might
>>>>>>>>>>> seem to be a wasteful use of the sense organs. But the anatomy
>>>>>>>>>>> indicates that very considerable advantage must accrue from
>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> usage. The innervation of the two retinas and the creation at
>>>>>>>>>>> the optic chiasma of pathways for the redistribution of
>>>>>>>>>>> information is such an extraordinary feat of morphogenesis as
>>>>>>>>>>> must surely denote great evolutionary advantage . (p.69)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>> Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria
>>>> Victoria,
>>>>>>>>>>> BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-dir
>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat
>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-
>>>> mathematics/>*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> different trajectories, Larry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
>>>> decision-
>>>>>>>>>>>> maki ng On 18/04/2017 11:44 PM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy, Julian, Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My learning curve at this moment is in the way of Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the back and forth double movement. That is both
>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving/receiving, both
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (expressing/listening) occurring WITHIN our relationship.
>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prior to or more primordial then taking the individual stance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as primary and the relation as derivative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So... In this ‘spirit’ I will pose a question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy says: ‘artefact mediated relation BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> unit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael says: You remain with back-and-forth movement that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NEVER action but IS transcation. Here the back-and-forth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘relation’ is the UNIT, and the individuals emerge from
>>>> WITHIN
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this primordial double relation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are Andy and Michael on the same trajectory, shifting the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accent, or are imdividuals situated differently in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comtrasting notions of units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In particular does Andy ‘figure’ bridges whereas Michael
>>>>>> ‘figures’
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gaps in the notion of BETWEEN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pursuing my growing edge, going out on a limb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From: *Andy Blunden <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *April 17, 2017 11:54 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.
>>>> edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Julian/Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember getting very excited back in the early '80s when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I spotted the symmetry between the first chapters of Capital
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Marx's critique of algebra in his Mathematical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manuscripts. That lasted about a week. The symmetry between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's analysis of speech and Marx's analysis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> production is a strong one because both take an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> artefact-mediated relation between individuals as the unit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a symmetry at the level of the molar unit as well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which, so far as I know has been neglected. But this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> structural symmetry cannot usefully be taken too far. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "point" is that the unit is a unit of a whole, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> productive activity of a community is not the same as its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> language, which as Marx said "the philosophers are bound to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make into an independent realm." Concretely, speaking is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> producing. But like all human activities, both are subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to analysis by units of artefact-mediated actions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
>>>> decision
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -mak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2017 7:01 AM, Julian Williams wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In principle I am Ok with the idea of the unit that contains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictions… but of what?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For Marx the whole point of commodity exchange/value is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning of an explanation of the 'economy', capitalism, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> labour
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory of value is the key to its collapse …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the equivalent 'point' of sign exchange in dialogue?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the equivalent of the theory of value? I think the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensuous/supersensuous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a distraction from the 'point'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s my puzzle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Julian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 21:49, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Julian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sign is to the verbal exchange what the commodity is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commodity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange--both the sensuous and supersensuous parts are there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky are writing about. :-) Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
>>>> dir
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ections-in-mat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-
>>>> mathematics/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Julian Williams <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael and all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am coming late to this discussion and maybe have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> important thingsŠ but I want to see a few issues addressed by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Functor:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commodity => Sign: my skepticism follows to some extent
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> critique I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote of the mapping 'labor = learning' that you are familiar
>>>>>> with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ways I am even more skeptical of this metaphor. So:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commodity to sign, is a unit of a totality as in 'economy'
>>>>> to
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Š?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Š '
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What ? Maybe 'dialogue/discourse'?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the 'value' that is exchanged in discourse, and
>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does it ultimately realise its 'use value' in some sort of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dialogic 'consumption'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of useful understanding?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does the producer of value 'labour' to produce it, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'labour time' related to the 'exchange value' of the sign
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Bearing in mind that the labour theory of value is Marx's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then how does this work relate to devious studies: we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work of Bourdieu who assigns cultural capital/value to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> symbolic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cultural fieldŠ is there a connection here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards as ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Julian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ps I need to come back to you about Hegel (I am far from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happy with reading the 'Ideal' as a straightforward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negation of the
>>>>>>>> 'Real'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implicit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in what you sayŠ) when I have thought about this a bit more -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018Š we should pick up! :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Larry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things become easier to think through if you do not take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individualist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point but a relational one---not "she has to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce
>>>>>>> . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look at what is happening in the exchange, where each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking, such that in a commodity exchange, you have double
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving-taking;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a verbal exchange, each speaking also involves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listening and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receiving,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the receiving is for the purpose of giving (speaking,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replying).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon as you do this, you remain with back-and-forth movement,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> action but transaction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other interesting thing is that the Russian word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> znachenie,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as "meaning" (really, signification) also translates as
>>>>>> "value"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "magnitude," and Il'enkov (2009) parenthetically adds
>>>>> "function"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "rôle". I am quoting from p. 178:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fichte, who tried to solve the problem of Œideality¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining Œinside
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness¹, without venturing into the external
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensuously-perceptible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corporeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world, the world of the palpable-corporeal forms and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This Hegelian definition of the term Œideality¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of phenomena
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within which the Œideal¹, understood as the corporeally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embodied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the activity of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> social man, really exists as activity in the form of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversely, as the thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the form of activity, as a Œmoment¹ of this activity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fleeting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metamorphoses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without an understanding of this state of affairs
>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to fathom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the miracles performed by the commodity before people¹s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyes, the commodity-form of the product, particularly in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its dazzling money-form, in the form
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notorious Œreal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talers¹, Œreal roubles¹, or Œreal dollars¹, things which,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the slightest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œreal¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, but Œideal¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through and through, things whose category quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units of language, and many other Œthings¹. Things that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wholly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œmaterial¹,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their
>>>> Œmeaning¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rôle) from Œspirit¹,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Œthought¹ and even owe to it their specific
>>>> corporeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Outside spirit and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without it there cannot even be words; there is merely a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vibration of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science MacLaurin Building A567 University of Victoria
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2 http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.sensepublishers.
>>>> com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directions-in-mat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-
>>>> mathemat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ics/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, <
>>>> lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael¹s trajectory as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article (A Dialectical Materialist Reading of the Sign).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 149
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts to clarify the difference between sign complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œuse-value¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex Œvalue¹.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His methodology is to read Marx Œsubstituting¹ the word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ŒSIGN¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (implying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign complex) FOR Œcommodity¹ and intuites this method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is his realization through the method of re-reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (trading,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> translation, transposition) as I am carried along.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) USE-VALUE: Œnatural signs¹ such as animal footprints
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œvalue¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeble value) though they do have use-value for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hunter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hunting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party in finding game. Similarly a sign complex can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product of human labour without being Œvalue¹
>>>>> (exchangeable).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfies HER needs through her product produces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œuse-value¹ but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œvalue¹.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only Œuse-value¹ but use-value FOR others. She has
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce Œsocietal¹ use-values.... To be/come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable) SIGN, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HAS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œconstitutes¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use-value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The production of signs that produce no Œvalue¹ that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trans/form use-value to BE come Œvalue¹ requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exchangeability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lighting various forms of SIGN (complexes).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apologies to Wolff-Michael if my echoing his re-reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methodology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> garrbled the trans/mission?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I offer this because it helps clarify my reading of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Œuse-value¹ & Œvalue¹
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (exchangeable)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My morning musement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> <cole.re-look.pdf>
>>
>>
>>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list